[FRIAM] two books

[∄ uǝʃƃ]

On 12/8/18 6:09 PM, Jon Zingale wrote:
> In modern mathematics, one encounters categories whose `points` have an internal structure which can be more complicated than one's initial intuition would provide. There is a sense that what the interested physicist is doing by exploring the duality is attempting to understand the nature of 'physical points'. How is a physical point like a point in Euclidean geometry? To what extent can there be a consistent formal description which matches our knowledge of these points?
> 
> Perhaps from some phenomenological perspective, we should understand these physical points as founding all experience regarding points and waves. After all, assuming the present quantum mechanical presentation, all of the classical experiences of  wave-like nature and particle-like nature are derived from interactions of these underlying primitive objects.

It boils down to semantic grounding and whether or not the derivations are truth preserving. If the math is (merely) a model of reality, then it's irrelevant whether an intermediate derivation has meaning or not.  What matters is the meaning of a given expression when we get to a "grounding point" (or in simulation a validation point). But if the math *is* reality (or maps so tightly to reality so as to be indistinguishable from reality), then each and every term of each and every expression, throughout any intermediate transformation, has physical meaning.

-- 
∄ uǝʃƃ